TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (6) TMI 841
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the residential premises of the Assessee and his two employees on 17.11.1998. During the course of search various articles like cash, jewellery, shares, bank account etc were found besides books of accounts/loose paper file. Cash amounting to Rs 50,000, loose paper files and bank lockers held in the name of the assessee and other family members were seized. Consequent upon the search operation, block assessment for block period was completed on 29.12.2000 and the total undisclosed income was determined of Rs 21,75,900/- as against the undisclosed income returned for the block period at Rs 1051/-. Against the order of Assessing Officer, Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) where certain additions were deleted. Aggrieved by the order of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....firming the addition of jewelry the honorable ITAT has stated that explanation in respect of other jewelry having been received by the assessee from his sister at Nairobi cannot be accepted because there is no supporting declaration filed with the customs/immigration authorities while coming from Nairobi to India. In view of this it is clear that the explanation given by the assessee has been found to be false and therefore penalty has to be levied. Similarly with respect to cash and other items the assessee's explanation not supported by any documentary evidence and hence the investment is fully unexplained. In view of the above the explanation given by the appellant has been found to be false. And hence the penalty levied is correct. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on which have been sustained in on account of estimation. He further submitted that all the explanations were furnished by the Assessee. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Mahendra Vyas (IT(SS)A No 59/Ahd/2010 order dated 21.2.2014) and also placed on record the copy of the aforesaid decision. The Ld DR on the other hand relied on the order of the AO and CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. On the basis of submissions made and the material on record, the factual position that emerges is that search u/s 132 was carried out at the residential premises of Assessee and certain documents were found and seized. Consequent to search operations block assessm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ell witliin the discretion of the A.O, while framing the assessment for the block period, whether or not to impose any penalty or not. The words, "may direct" have to be given its normal meaning, leaving discretion to the officer. In absence of any special reason the word, "may" cannot be read as "shall". The contention of the counsel for the Revenue that only upon satisfaction of the conditions contained in proviso to sub-section (2) that the assesses, in case of the block assessment can be spared of the penalty cannot be accepted. It is, of course, true that upon satisfying such conditions, that in assessee would get immunity from penalty. Nevertheless, this is not a thing as to suggest that in no other case, or on no other ground, the A.....